What the documents look like
Producer export tax refunds combine the offset of domestic-sales tax with the refund calculation, so the arithmetic structure differs from the export refund work performed by trading enterprises. The working materials for this category concentrate in four document types: the exemption, offset and refund declaration detail table, the export contract, the sales subsidiary ledger, and the customs export declaration form. Data originates from the electronic tax bureau, ERP sales records, customs electronic information, and the financial books, and the update cadence is monthly.
Order fulfilment and after-sales question answering in this category turns on specific documents and specific fields. A question typically concerns the declared amount on one export contract, an FOB price difference, or a single row of the declaration detail table. An answer that does not land on an identifiable document and field does not serve the tax accountant who asked. Because the monthly cycle governs when figures change, a conversation held mid-month may reference figures that later declarations revise.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
The prompt must state the document scope, the answering task, and the handling of missing evidence, so the model does not write business facts that the source does not contain. History handling requires checking what context is actually carried in, and distinguishing a new session from a continued session, since the two bring different content forward. Question optimisation in knowledge-base multi-turn dialogue requires checking reference resolution and question expansion; short questions do not automatically qualify.
Model and length constraints require checking the context length and reply settings the selected model supports, and testing long documents combined with follow-up questions. Reply format follows the downstream consumer: ordinary question answering keeps the default, while a downstream process that reads a fixed structure requires selecting json_schema and supplying the corresponding format requirement, then checking the returned structure. Retrieval and similarity scores do not perform permission or entity isolation, and the retrieval action itself does not constitute authorisation.
Hypothetical exercise sample: a tax accountant at an export producer is reconciling the exemption, offset and refund declaration detail table against one export contract. The source text reads: "Export contract HT-2024-08 was signed in August 2024, customs declaration number 20240815xxxx, terms FOB, declared amount USD 120,000. Row 12 of the exemption, offset and refund declaration detail table shows export sales converted to RMB 864,000, and the sales subsidiary ledger shows RMB 864,000 for the same entry in the same period." Draft sentence to be assessed: "This export transaction has passed the exemption, offset and refund declaration review, and the refund amount has arrived." The draft sentence asserts two facts, the review outcome and the receipt of funds, and the source text records neither. The draft is unsupported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check for this page | Basis and explanation |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model documented as supporting long context and tool calling | Official documentation states models differ in context length and tool-calling ability; selection follows document length |
| Memory turns | For this hypothetical exercise, start at 3 turns and compare against 1 turn and 6 turns when observing follow-up behaviour | Documentation states customer service and knowledge-base applications usually retain a small number of history turns; the starting value is this page's hypothetical, not an official default |
| Temperature | Set low | Documentation states customer service, knowledge-base question answering and rule-bound scenarios suit a lower value |
| Reply limit | Set according to the stated document length; enabling it restricts reply length | Documentation states a low setting may truncate and a higher setting produces more complete content |
| Reply format | Keep default for ordinary question answering; select json_schema and supply the format requirement when a downstream process reads a fixed structure | Documentation states the format is changed only when a downstream process needs to read fixed-format content |
| Multimodal recognition | Enable only when the model supports it and the user uploads the corresponding media | Documentation states that even when enabled, types are filtered against model capability and unsupported types are not sent |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval similarity score as a permission or entity filter. In the official documentation
scoreis a relevance value on a retrieval result and does not exclude unrelated enterprises or unauthorised records. The check compares thedataset_idin the returnedquoteListagainst the knowledge base identifiers the current application may access. A mismatch is a scope problem and requires separate permission handling; a matching value still does not establish authorisation. - Treating a form or option returned by an interactive node as already executed. The documentation states the interactive node returns a display configuration containing only
typeandparams. The check compares the returnedinteractivefield against whether a further session was initiated with the user input. Without that further session the workflow remains waiting and does not constitute a completed submission. - Treating a thinking budget as a citation token ceiling. In the documentation
thinkingBudgetbelongs to the thinking configuration and is unrelated to prompt reference length. The check compares the thinking configuration item against the reply limit configuration item to see whether the two have been conflated; conflation is a configuration error.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the source text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample above. Compare whether "has passed review" and "funds have arrived" in the draft share the same subject, the same period and the same field as the source. The source records neither the review outcome nor the receipt of funds, so the observed result is that the draft sentence is unsupported; the evidence gap must be retained and no definite conclusion may be output.
- Enter two consecutive follow-up turns under the same
chatId. Compare the number of history turns carried into the second turn against the configured memory turns. Observe the actual count of entries inhistoryPreviewwithinflowResponses. A count that does not match the configured value indicates a context-carrying problem. - Enter a paper-constructed empty-result handoff sample in which the retrieval result is recorded as
[]. Compare the downstream node's output design when it receives empty references. Observe whether the downstream node handles the situation as missing evidence. If the downstream node fabricates business facts directly, that is a handoff design problem. This construction does not assert that any retrieval rule returns[]in operation.
The checks above describe what to compare and what remains unknown. No test, deployment, approval or refund has been performed.